Men: Now a Minority in PC Gaming.

[Something Amyss]

I don't know about this. If we were talking about the prevelance of women in tabletop games like DandD or Warhammer and the data included people who play Candyland you probably wouldn't think they were comparable.

And you'd have the same problem if you were to talk about FPS and included data about Street Fighter players. But that's sort of redefining the terms.

Let's ignore, for a moment, that we then put some sort of undemonstrated weight on whether there's an actual gender bias in browser/Facebook/whatever games. Let's focus solely on the terminology. The problem here is we're talking games. Not "games like X and Y," but games in general.

Is this what people are so pissed off about? They see a study based on tabletop games and are upset that D&D isn't fairly focused on?

Well...so what?

No, I'm being serious here. I don't get it. The market is widening. It seems like only yesterday we were bemoaning the focus on "dudebro shooters," and statistically it probably was only yesterday. We collectively get pissed off when your Roger Eberts come along and insist games can never be art because he didn't factor in X or Y or Z, but then, what do we do?

We do the equivalent of excluding a good chunk of the market because....what?

When you say "tabletop game," you're talking about a broad term that encompasses traditional board games, modern RPGs, card games of both the traditional and trading-card varieties, and so on. If we're talking about board games, and someone says this doesn't reflect D&D or Warhammer, well so what?

 

[SilverUchiha]

1. Why do you think more women play RPGs than men?

Most likely because general female audiences prefer games with stories and the ability to modify their characters in some way (ala Skyrim) to look like whoever or whatever they want. They're not in it solely for the empowerment fantasies that FPS games generally go for. And I'm very much in that same boat (as a male) because stories in RPGs tend to be more interesting than anything else. Arguably, RPGs also last longer than an average FPS and perhaps general female audiences prefer sticking to one game and playing through that as long as possible to enjoy the experience to the fullest rather than jumping from twitch-reactionary game of 4-6 hours to another trigger-happy-shooty-fest lasting another 4-6 hours.

2. Why do you think more men FPSs than women?

I don't really know. My guess is because men have been in gaming longer (generally speaking) and they are used to reaction-based game mechanics all the way since the NES days. So these are games just building off the gameplay they've already grown accustomed to and other games like RPGs are just a tad slower for their enjoyment. I like how I "their" enjoyment like I'm not part of the male demographic even though I totally am. But I actually don't enjoy FPS games more than RPGs in most cases. In fact, most of them I just get bored with because they all have basically the same feel to them and it gets old after a while.

3. Mobile, Social or "Casual" games are included in these numbers, do you think they should be discounted, if so, why?

No. They're still technically games. And "casual" is such a broad term because some people will imply that Mario is "casual" but Mario is a classic game series with entries that people will struggle to get through in comparison to the latest Call of Duty that you can finish in just a handful of hours. And how can you argue that Call of Duty isn't a social game with the poisonous toxic filth that is the online-gaming community? It isn't a Facebook social game, but it is a game that does put emphasis on the social-aspect of its game by encouraging others players to play together. As such, the above terms to refer to games as lesser games is silly and stupid.

What I'm more interested to know are demographics for platformers, fighting games, action games, horror games, puzzle games, and other games that aren't listed because apparently researchers only care about two demographics.


[/quote]

 

[Savagezion]

Snip

You misunderstand. I don't consider someone who played a game two years ago once to be a gamer. I consider someone who plays games on any regular basis, even if it's just once a week, to be a gamer. Even if it's just farmvile.

My argument got all mixed up, that's the only point I was trying to make.

I can agree with that. I don't think farmville players arent gamers. Shit, I actually think many of them are more hardcore about it than I am in terms of time dedication. However, the most I have personally seen someone spend on farmville is $20. I know whales exist, but none populate my habitat. It's all about F2P for life around me. Meanwhile, I am spending hundreds of dollars every year on the industry supporting multiple titles on multiple platforms. I am interested in game development design choices, why a game is popular vs. one that is not, customer dev relations, etc. Not just making sure I hop online and harvest my strawberries at 3:15 and having no opinion on that other 'nerdy' stuff. It is a little irritating to hear someone say myself and those gamers are the same.

It isn't because I think I am better than them, it is because I am not so naive as to think we are the same at all. There is a vast amount of diversity in gaming today. And I ain't talking about race/gender stuff. I mean there is a vast amount of diversity in GAMING. What people play, why they play it, how they play it, etc. That is the main reason Minecraft got so popular, it could cater to so many people's gaming style. PvP, builder games, achievement junkies, etc. (Not through actual achievements but like being able to say "I got full diamond everything and a house made out of diamond and blah, blah, blah. You got mods adding in even more to that playstyle diversity. You got graphic modpacks that range from retro to cartoony to photo realism. The way people play games is so diverse now, lumping anyone who plays games together and going "gamer trends" doesn't work. We are now adding apps to the list, why not board games? Sports? tabletop rpgs? fantasy football? etc. Why stop there? We could make everyone a "gamer" tomorrow. So long as they play a game of some kind and want to call themselves a gamer, what's the difference, right? We want to be inclusive after all.

 

[nevarran]

1. Why do you think more women play RPGs than men?
2. Why do you think more men FPSs than women?

I guess women are more into immersion and details, while men are happy with a quick not engaging adrenalin rush.

3. Mobile, Social or "Casual" games are included in these numbers, do you think they should be discounted, if so, why?

Why should anyone who plays games be excluded from a survey on people who play games?

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Why isnt there a study that doesnt involve casual games , facebook games....

Because such a study couldn't be used as an "argument" why the AAA industry should stop revolving about the wast majority of their consumer base and start revolving about people that aren't their consumer base.

Honestly, I'm getting sick of this argument. Every time someone brings up the male to female ration gaming, I know it will lead to someone having a snarky comment to some AAA publisher telling them how they are woring and should start focusing on female players as much as male players. Now, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against big publisher pandering to anyone. If they want to do it, they can do it. I don't care. After all I'm not the targeted audience for the wast majority of the games since "widening the audience" has become a big thing.
But I hate those false arguments.

People are making a separation of the casual and core argument for a reason and it's not "because they don't want to share their games with others". It's because the markets for those 2 groups is vastly different and pandering to the other market means destroying my fun and I don't want that. They have their own developer, let those developer make games for them. I've lost the FPS market because casuals can't into fast paced FPS games. I've lost the RTS games because every game has to be a billion seller. I've lost the RPG market because people can't into reading and need quest marker, voice acting, overcasualized stats systems, magic, combat, world layout and everything else.
So yeah, sorry if it hurts someone that I don't want the things I like to get fucked up just so that he or she can enjoy it. Actually, I'm not sorry. Fuck them. Anyone who actually loved Morrowind will tell you what piece of shit Skyrim is. Everyone who loved Thief will tell you what piece of shit the new Thief is. I don't want to see more things I enjoy getting ruined just to pander to someone who actually doesn't really care about the game.

EDIT:

 

[Phasmal]

Nah, I would say we did exactly that when CoD got big and every publisher under the sun was trying to cater to the CoD audience. (Who is mostly male. Everyone considers a CoD gamer a casual here. We all know there are people who strictly play it and maybe another shooter on the side like Destiny or Titanfall. But CoD holds a fanbase that has zero interest in anything that isn't CoD or CoD-like in nature. The phrase "Go back to CoD" means we will do exactly that to other men. Especially considering CoD's fanbase are primarily guys in their mid 20s.

I just re-read the thread and I can't really see anyone going `but how many of those guys just play CoD?`, and I don't see this come up that often. Sure, I've heard it once or twice, but it's not automatically shoehorned in when you talk about men playing games.

Point being, men's inclusion in gaming is rarely questioned in the way women's is. As a core female gamer, this makes me disappointed a little, when conversations about women in gaming immediately turn to conversations about casual gamers as if they are one and the same.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I don't know about this. If we were talking about the prevelance of women in tabletop games like DandD or Warhammer and the data included people who play Candyland you probably wouldn't think they were comparable.

Let's ignore, for a moment, that we then put some sort of undemonstrated weight on whether there's an actual gender bias in browser/Facebook/whatever games. Let's focus solely on the terminology. The problem here is we're talking games. Not "games like X and Y," but games in general.

Is this what people are so pissed off about? They see a study based on tabletop games and are upset that D&D isn't fairly focused on?

Well...so what?

No, I'm being serious here. I don't get it. The market is widening. It seems like only yesterday we were bemoaning the focus on "dudebro shooters," and statistically it probably was only yesterday. We collectively get pissed off when your Roger Eberts come along and insist games can never be art because he didn't factor in X or Y or Z, but then, what do we do?

We do the equivalent of excluding a good chunk of the market because....what?

When you say "tabletop game," you're talking about a broad term that encompasses traditional board games, modern RPGs, card games of both the traditional and trading-card varieties, and so on. If we're talking about board games, and someone says this doesn't reflect D&D or Warhammer, well so what?

First off, I never said I was pissed off about or defensive of anything so don't get your panties in a bunch and start using "we" for every statement. I'm not attempting to throw up walls and set up separate tree houses for the "casual" and "hardcore" crowd. I'm only pointing out that from my perspective there can be certain distinctions within a broad category like PC gaming or board games that should be acknowledged when talking about the market as a whole; because they're not the same market. I'd be willing to bet that a large proportion of facebook/mobile/browser "gamers" couldn't care less about PC gaming in any other capacity or even know what say, Steam is, for example. Does that make them lesser than you or I or anyone else? No of course not. But lumping the groups together and calling them exactly the same and comparable is naive.

 

[Something Amyss]

First off, I never said I was pissed off about or defensive of anything

Never said you did.

so don't get your panties in a bunch and start using "we" for every statement.

Hey, you know how you didn't like it when you thought accusations were made? You know, in the first half of this very sentence? Yeah, now you're doing the same. Isn't it interesting how it's wrong for me to do it (even though I didn't), but okay for you to?

Also, I used "we" as a collective statement. I even said "collectively" once.

I suppose the new question is: why take personally things not said about you?

I'm not attempting to throw up walls and set up separate tree houses for the "casual" and "hardcore" crowd.

And I said you were, where?

I'm only pointing out that from my perspective there can be certain distinctions within a broad category like PC gaming or board games that should be acknowledged when talking about the market as a whole; because they're not the same market.

And I addressed this specifically by pointing out how these are broad categories and that even your analogy was terrible.

I'd be willing to bet that a large proportion of facebook/mobile/browser "gamers" couldn't care less about PC gaming in any other capacity or even know what say, Steam is, for example.

I bet a large portion of Rummy players don't care about D&D. Unless your argument is that they don't count as tabletop players, however, I don't see the point of bringing this up. Broad categories are broad.

But lumping the groups together and calling them exactly the same and comparable is naive.

And thankfully, neither I nor Verlander said that. I'm not sure if you're not reading us, or what, but Verlander simply said "games are games, whether they're casual or not." Again, this should set off your tautology sense. Games are games. Instead, you're either inferring or making up some sort of "exactly the same and comparable" sentiment that wasn't there.

Baseball and hockey are both sports. It doesn't make them exactly the same and comparable.

I'm not even sure how you get there from here.

 

[Something Amyss]

I've lost the FPS market because casuals can't into fast paced FPS games.

But who cares what you think? You're a minority in gaming. Why should they pander to you? Why should the industry stop revolving around the vast majority of its consumer base?

Now, consider for a moment, that's the same logic you just espoused towards another group.

I just re-read the thread and I can't really see anyone going `but how many of those guys just play CoD?`, and I don't see this come up that often. Sure, I've heard it once or twice, but it's not automatically shoehorned in when you talk about men playing games.

And you never see such people labeled "fake gamer guys" or similar, except in the context of someone taking the piss.

 

[Ieyke]

Does it matter? No.
Have I ever met a girl gamer? No.
Have I ever met a male gamer? Many, many, many times.
Is the thread title click bait? Yes.

If all these girls really are playin' the vidja gamz, where are they? Why do they hide the fact? Why don't they socialize like everyone else in real life? Maybe a lot of those 'girls' are g.i.r.ls.

Either way, doesn't matter at all. What kind of point is there to prove here?

Where the balls do you live that there are no female gamers?
The majority of my friends are women, and the majority of THEM are gamers.

Beyond the ones I know, I'm around dozens and dozen of them every day....

I ABSOLUTELY believe ~50% of gamers are female. It's the PC part that's hard to believe.

 

[angryscotsman93]

Why is this thread making people so angry? Why are so many people going "ya, but Farmville!"

i think it's general disdain/fear of the current trend pushing for social justice (excuse the term, can't think of anything better / more neutral at the moment) in games. heavily skewed statistics like this make the situation look in a way that it quiet isn't and can be used for justification of pushing more "serious" non-social games gaming (again, sub-optimal term, but i can't think of something better) into a direction that many (myself, as a girl, included) is harmful to the quality of games.

Well, if we're talking specifically about games like Farmville or Candy Crush, it's because I think that yes, 'gamers' as a nebulous, ill-defined group seem to be leery of games like that for varying reasons (reactionary nature, simplified gameplay, some other BS). Hell, by my own definition, those games count as games, but it still feels... "wrong," in a way, to include them, as if they still don't quite register that way in my brain. I might be biased by my utter hatred for King.com and its business practices, though. Fuck those guys.

As for the 'social justice' aspect- good luck with that. See where that discussion takes you. I, for one, have been doing my utmost lately to avoid sticking my head into that guillotine, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

 

[Something Amyss]

Also you aren't the majority, you're just a loud obnoxious self proclaimed social justice warrior.

Well, except I didn't claim I was the majority, so that's irrelevant.

And I've never seriously called myself a social justice warrior, I've used it as a joke because folks like you keep branding me with it. But that's okay, I understand that nuance is a difficult thing.

And I'm not particularly loud.

I'll give you obnoxious. It must seem especially obnoxious when someone points out that your own logic applies to your own complaints.

It's this sort of histrionic reaction that gives gamers the rep they have.

 

[Something Amyss]

Because I don't think I've ever seen a guy try to pretend he was a gamer outside of maybe 12 year olds that only play CoD and inhale Dewritos, which have received their fair amount of derision with good reason.

Derision, but as Phasmal was saying they are neither discounted nor immediately brought into the conversation.

This was already brought up, though.

 

[runic knight]

Article is a bit misleading as it looks purely at numbers of people and not at the financial impact each group has in the market. So in that regard, it is useless except as a sort of feel-good thing. And while it is sure nice to hear more women in pc gaming then men, that doesn't actually mean anything if the basis for what games are made with the biggest financial investments (you know, the AAA games that have franchises behind them or are using profitable gameplay aspects). Though then again, since games aren't "male" or "female" and all assumption of that is merely projecting the results of individual choices noticed in the playing patterns onto the games themselves anyways, the idea of the study needing to resort to including games with far less financial impact (such as facebook games) in order to reach the numbers they report does sort of demonstrate a general idea of what is already assumed about the difference between the more heavily invested in mainstream game types like FPS are favored by males more and the much less impactful and less invested in "casual" market being more female favored.

I suppose the info might be useful for companies like Zynga for the next wave of Skinner-box time wasters, but beyond that the importance of this tidbit, it really is just not there against the weight of established business design and the larger financial impact triple A has in comparison.

As for the casual gamer argument brought up, my thought was that the relation between casual and hardcore was less about them being "facebook" type games or even just "simple timekiller" games and more so about the cost point. Mario made today would be a casual game to many. This is less relevant now after the rise and fall of FTP mmo and games like LoL, but there is still the vestigial idea that a hardcore game is one with a higher entry cost point then a casual one (and with it comes the inherently greater "pull" on the direction of the market as the greater financial force of, say, a Triple A game in shaping the direction the other larger publications go compared to a game like farmville.) Not to say that "casual" games don't cause patterns of their own, but between the two there is a reason that larger publishers chase the CoD crowd and not the flappybird one with greater money behind their efforts.

As for "fake gamer girls" this is not the place for that can of worms. Honestly, it invites everything from ideas of sub-cultural appropriation arguments and social manipulation to even dragging in gamergate and the posterchild of the manipulative "fake gamer girl" stereotype, Anita herself. Might be best to stick with the information provided and not try to chase those dragons too far.

 

[LittleJoeRambler]

It's this sort of histrionic reaction that gives gamers the rep they have.

I consider myself a "gamer" despite some of my misgivings with the unspecific nature of the term, and posted some of my thoughts on the issue on the last page in what I thought was a reasonable, level-headed and non-inflammatory way, and got completely ignored for it. So does that mean I need to resort to histrionics in order for people to pay attention to what I say? Common sense says no, history says yes. I want to dialogue with people, talk about what's going right and what's going wrong with regards to gaming, and brainstorm solutions to any problems that get unearthed. What are my options for achieving this goal if I am to be continually ignored?

 

[TheArcaneThinker]

Why isnt there a study that doesnt involve casual games , facebook games....

Because such a study couldn't be used as an "argument" why the AAA industry should stop revolving about the wast majority of their consumer base and start revolving about people that aren't their consumer base.

Honestly, I'm getting sick of this argument. Every time someone brings up the male to female ration gaming, I know it will lead to someone having a snarky comment to some AAA publisher telling them how they are woring and should start focusing on female players as much as male players. Now, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against big publisher pandering to anyone. If they want to do it, they can do it. I don't care. After all I'm not the targeted audience for the wast majority of the games since "widening the audience" has become a big thing.
But I hate those false arguments.

People are making a separation of the casual and core argument for a reason and it's not "because they don't want to share their games with others". It's because the markets for those 2 groups is vastly different and pandering to the other market means destroying my fun and I don't want that. They have their own developer, let those developer make games for them. I've lost the FPS market because casuals can't into fast paced FPS games. I've lost the RTS games because every game has to be a billion seller. I've lost the RPG market because people can't into reading and need quest marker, voice acting, overcasualized stats systems, magic, combat, world layout and everything else.
So yeah, sorry if it hurts someone that I don't want the things I like to get fucked up just so that he or she can enjoy it. Actually, I'm not sorry. Fuck them. Anyone who actually loved Morrowind will tell you what piece of shit Skyrim is. Everyone who loved Thief will tell you what piece of shit the new Thief is. I don't want to see more things I enjoy getting ruined just to pander to someone who actually doesn't really care about the game.

EDIT:

Just take a look at my reply to another person about this topic..... Its on Page 3.

 

[Phasmal]

I just re-read the thread and I can't really see anyone going `but how many of those guys just play CoD?`, and I don't see this come up that often. Sure, I've heard it once or twice, but it's not automatically shoehorned in when you talk about men playing games.

And you never see such people labeled "fake gamer guys" or similar, except in the context of someone taking the piss.

Eh. I try to ignore/avoid the `fake` thing now. I don't think you can really reason with someone who thinks that women would spend a shit-ton of time and money getting gaming stuff, playing games and talking about games just to impress them. Games are infinitely more interesting than some guy's D. I can't really understand that level of narcissism.

And you never see such people labeled "fake gamer guys" or similar, except in the context of someone taking the piss.

Because I don't think I've ever seen a guy try to pretend he was a gamer outside of maybe 12 year olds that only play CoD and inhale Dewritos, which have received their fair amount of derision with good reason. Other than that, there's not really places where guys can benefit from waving their gender in place of actual knowledge of the hobby, especially when the general perception of male gamers tends to be whole virgin neckbeard basement dweller stereotype, not exactly something a guy would like to be seen as.

1- I don't think I've ever seen a girl pretend to be a gamer either, for all these people who have totes met a fake geek girl, I've yet to see much evidence of their existance besides people moaning about them, and I certainly don't think they are a problem even if they do exist.

2- Oh yeah there are totally no negative stereotypes for female gamers, nope it's 100% admiration all the time for lady gamers it's not like they'd go on forums and every time their gender gets brought up someone has to rush in an talk about dem casuals hahaha that would never happen. Besides, fat, ugly, and massively socially awkward is a stereotype gamers share regardless of gender.

 

[asdfen]

if by pc gaming the numbers mean stuff like tetris, whatever there is on web browsers and mobile then I may believe it. If we are talking about games like portal batman assassins creed and so on I dont believe the numbers for a second.

Also in my personal experience female "gamers" are almost non existent compare to males if we are talking about actual games not browser stuff and misc "casual games" I think is the term.

 

[Karadalis]

Point being, men's inclusion in gaming is rarely questioned in the way women's is. As a core female gamer, this makes me disappointed a little, when conversations about women in gaming immediately turn to conversations about casual gamers as if they are one and the same.

It being not questioned is not a positive thing for male gamers thought.

And you know why that is? Because they where demonized as nerdy basement dwellers for allmost 20 years.

The public eye still sees the word "gamer" as some hatefull nerdy fat guy virgin with glasses and acne sitting in their parents basement, thanks to the hard work of the gaming media and professional victims this stereotype has raised its ugly head once more even thought the numbers and statistics all point in the opposite direction.

Now female hardcore gamers have their own problems to deal with, most notably not being taken serious (or have to deal with the amourus and clumsy advances of hormone raging teenagers). But ill take "not being taken to serious" over being dehumanized any day why thankyou.

Fact is: Hardcore female gamers do not exist in a large enough number yet to warrant that the AAA industry caters to them. That is the cold hard truth. It sucks but in the end business is business. You cant risk large sums of money just because you ant to be PC.

So trying to strongarm developers into changing their games to please an audience that doesnt really exist or is even interested in the genre in question is just silly and a waste of money and dev time.

However things HAVE been getting better and better over the last years despite some prof victims claiming otherwise. The number of hardcore female gamers IS slowly growing, and once they reach a certain number the industry will notice and cater to them more then they are allready doing, and that reason is money. Once female hardcore gamers become a market that has to be taken into consideration they will get their own hardcore games/hardcore games will become more "inclusive" (wich they are allready in the process of)

And for the guys: that doesnt mean that male focused games are going away, youre still a monetary force to be reckoned with, allways have allways will be.. it just means the girls get their own hardcore toys....


now that sounded a bit wrong... but i guess you get what im talking about.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Also you aren't the majority, you're just a loud obnoxious self proclaimed social justice warrior.

Well, except I didn't claim I was the majority, so that's irrelevant.

And I've never seriously called myself a social justice warrior, I've used it as a joke because folks like you keep branding me with it. But that's okay, I understand that nuance is a difficult thing.

And I'm not particularly loud.

I'll give you obnoxious. It must seem especially obnoxious when someone points out that your own logic applies to your own complaints.

It's this sort of histrionic reaction that gives gamer the rep they have.

I know that my logic applies to me as well. That's why you won't see me demanding that Activision changes their ways and brings bac the good old CoD 1-4. You won't see me ask Bethesda or Bioware to bring back the old-school RPG games that tehy were making.
However, I know that people like me are still a majority as far as Zelda games go for example. I know that people like me are the majority of Thief fans yet we were pushed aside because the publisher thought they could tap into the CoD market and fucked up big time. As the majority and an actual fan of the Zelda series, I will always push against anyone and everyone who wants to change Zelda for the shake of change, to ruin the lore, the "formula", the character. Same goes for every other game/genre that I believe people like me are the majority.

If Nintendo decides to make a Zelda game where you play as Zelda, I would buy the game the moment I can. But if Nintendo decides to fuck up Link by making him a girl and Zelda a guy, I will boycott that game. If Nintendo decides to make a game with Peach saving Mario, I would love it. I like Metroid except Other M. And I dislike Other M because it ruined the actually well defined and great female character that is Samus. I played Remember Me and I didn't give a single fuck that the PC was female. I finished every Mass Defect as a male and female character several times. I'm not against females in games, I welcome them simply because I either don't care about the gender of the character or because the gender can actually add value to the story (depending on the games). I'm alos not against female gamer. I don't care what gender, sex, race, sexuality, whatever you are. Females can be as hardcore as some males, males can be as causal as some females. There are biological differences between males and females but I don't believe they affect how much we can love games. Everyone who loves games is welcome to gaming. However I'm strictly against gender-bending in everything besides my porn because I hate seeing established character get changed just to fill in some idiotic political correctness norm. Want more females, add more females, don't removes males or anyone else for that matter. I called you obnoxious but I didn't meant hat as an insult, I know that I'm even more obnoxious to even more people than you are.

Sorry if you think I hate actual feminism or equality, but I hate studies like this one. It makes no separation between 2 completely different markets because it tries to push an agenda. I've already seen a quite a few people use studies like this to literally demand from companies to change existing character. The one most annoying to me as people telling how Nintendo is stupid for not making Link a girl because 50% of the market are females.

I also know that you are annoyed by people being strictly against female character and I understand you. I get annoyed by those people as well. It's not like adding new female character will make the game in any way inferior than if the game was without them.
I know I often make little sense to people and contradict myself, but it's usually because I'm really bad at expressing myself. I change my thinking when I see proof that I'm wrong and I accept everyone as a gamer, casual, hardcore, social, mobile... but I will always insist for studies to differentiate between some of those "categories" because if we don't, the term gamer becomes so broad that it loses all meaning. I believe that there are more females playing games on the PC, but I don't believe that females are the majority of the core PC gamer. From my experience and the statistics I've seen, males still outnumber females in the core PC market for almost all games and genres except The Sims, RPG and puzzle games.